Ex Parte Floyd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2016

13047180 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/047, 180 03/14/2011
59747 7590 05/31/2016
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Philip Floyd
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
QC0.298A/092859U6 6350
EXAMINER
NIXON, OMAR H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2886
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP FLOYD, TSONGMING KAO, MARC MIGNARD,
SUR Y APRAKASH GANTI, and MANI SH KOTHARI
Appeal2014-006896
Application 13/047,180
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH,
and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .... ,1 .... ,....,-TTr'l.r-"\l\-1,....Al/'\.r'" , .. T"""1 •-, Appeuants' appeal unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ rrom tne bxammer s
Final Rejection of claims 1--42, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM MEMS
Technologies, Inc. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2014-006896
Application 13/047,180
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to interferometric modulator (IMOD)
optical sensors for use in display devices (Spec. iii! 2--4). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. An optical sensing device comprising:
a first substrate;
a second substrate opposing the first substrate;
at least one transmissive element formed on the first
substrate, the transmissive element being actuatable to allow or
prevent passage of ambient optical signals within at least a first
transmission spectrum through to the second substrate, the first
transmission spectrum including wavelengths associated with a
type of object;
at least one optical detector formed on the second
substrate, the optical detector positioned to detect the ambient
optical signals passed through the transmissive element; and
a processor configured to determine a proximity of the
object based at least in part on input from the at least one
optical detector.
The Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner relied on Miles (US 2007 /0253054 Al; Nov. 1, 2007)
and Izadi et al. (US 2008/0122792 Al; May 29, 2008) to reject claims 1, 2,
and 4--42 (see Final Act. 2-14) and further added Chui et al. (US
2006/0077155 Al; Apr. 13, 2006) to reject claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(see Final Act. 15).
2
Appeal2014-006896
Application 13/047,180
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Miles discloses the recited at
least one transmissive element on the first substrate and at least one optical
detector on the second substrate (Final Act. 2-3 (citing Miles Fig. 19,
i-fi-f 121, 122)). The Examiner further finds Izadi discloses an optical sensing
device comprising a processor that determines a proximity of an object
based on the input from the optical detector (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
finds that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the optical sensing device of Miles to include a processor to identify
the locations of the object" (see id.).
First Argument - Ambient Light
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the embodiment
depicted in Figure 19 of Miles "is not configured to allow the passage of
ambient optical signals,'' as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10). Appellants
argue that the input to the modulator of Miles is not ambient light because
the input comes from the optical fiber 1900 (App. Br. 11 ).
The Examiner responds that, based on the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "allowing or preventing optical signal," the IMOD
transmissive element of Miles is capable of performing this function (Ans. 6
(citing Miles i-f 122, Fig. 19)). The Examiner further explains, although the
embodiment depicted in Figure 19 includes an optical fiber, Miles discloses
the IMOD may be illuminated by ambient light (id. (citing Miles i-f 133, Figs
29A-29C)).
We agree with the Examiner's interpretation of the term "allowing or
preventing optical signal" and the related findings with respect to the IMOD
3
Appeal2014-006896
Application 13/047,180
shown in Figure 19 of Miles. Additionally, we observe that the optical fiber
shown in Figure 19 is merely a source of light that is used as the input to the
IMOD. As shown in Figure 29A of Miles, the light source for illuminating
the IMOD or display 2900 is further described as ambient light or
supplemental light source 2902 (see Miles i-f 133). An optical fiber,
supplemental light source, or ambient light are different sources for the input
to the IMOD, which are similar to those identified in paragraph 68 of
Appellants' Specification as "the light incident on the sensor 340 from
directed or ambient light."
Second Argument - Izadi
Appellants contend the Examiner erred by relying on Izadi as teaching
the processor for determining the proximity of the object because "Izadi
does not operate based on ambient optical signals" (App. Br. 13).
Appellants further argue the determination in Izadi is based on the inputted
infrared radiation from source 218 rather than the recited ambient light (id.).
In response, the Examiner explains that the IMOD disclosed in Izadi
operates in similar manner as the sensors recited in claim 1 and further
includes filters that are used to filter out visible light from the illumination
source to protect the sensors (Ans. 7). The Examiner further points out that
Izadi was relied on as disclosing a processor for determining a proximity of
an object based on the input from the optical detectors and using filters to
provide infrared radiation to the sensors is not precluded by the claims (Ans.
8).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument because Miles
explicitly teaches the recited optical sensing device that is accessible to
allow or prevent passage of ambient or directed optical signals, whereas
4
Appeal2014-006896
Application 13/047,180
Izadi teaches processing the signals from the optical detector for determining
the proximity of an object. Contrary to Appellants' contention that different
embodiment of Miles use different types of input light (Reply Br. 6-8), the
IMOD device of Miles is actuatable to allow or prevent passage of optical
signals, which may be directed or ambient.
Third Argument - Propriety of the Combination
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining Miles with Izadi
because ( 1) the combination will not produce a functional device by
combining a detector including the IMOD devices of Miles with infrared
detectors of Izadi that are used to determine the proximity of game pieces
based on the reflected light; (2) Miles provides digital communications
signals inputted by the optical fiber; (3) placing an object within the
proximity of the detector of Miles would not affect the light reaching the
detector; and ( 4) Miles does not suggest the signals passing over the optical
fiber can be used to determine the proximity of an object (App. Br. 13-16).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, using
an optical fiber for providing illumination to the IMOD device of Miles is
one of the different embodiments disclosed in Miles, which include using
ambient light as the light source (see Miles i-f 133). As further explained by
the Examiner (Ans. 8), the IMOD device of Miles is applicable to touch
sensitive screens (see Miles i-f 129) which can provide the transmitted optical
signal from a transmissive element to the optical detectors in order to
generate the input signal to the processor. We also agree with the
Examiner's finding that Izadi suggests using this signal in a processor for
determining the proximity of an object (see Ans. 9).
5
Appeal2014-006896
Application 13/047,180
In fact, the holding in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007) supports the combination of Miles with Izadi because "when a patent
'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from
such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282
( 197 6)). The operative question is "whether the improvement is more than
the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions." Id. Here, the Examiner has identified a specific function of
optical detectors in Izadi which suggests determining the proximity of an
object based on the input signal from the optical detectors of Miles.
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Miles and Izadi
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Appellants present
arguments for the patentability of independent claim 40 which are similar to
the arguments made for the combination of Miles and Izadi (App. Br. 17-
18). For the same reasons stated above for claim 1, Appellants' contention
regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 40 does not persuade us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
of claims 1, 40, as well as the remaining claims which are not argued
separately (see App. Br. 8, 12, 16, 18).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--42 is affirmed.
6
Appeal2014-006896
Application 13/047,180
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7